So... folks... (those of you who aren't world renowned Lighting Designers)... any thoughts on the Obama-Clinton-Kerry foreign policy?
Who wishes Putin was OUR President...?!?!
I mean... think about it! The guy loves his country... loves his people... puts his nation's interests first...
Obviously Putin is highly intelligent...
...respected...
...feared...
(*SHRUG*)
Oh, well... just rambling out loud...
On to newsbites...!!!
9 comments:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/when-u-s-steps-back-will-russia-and-china-control-the-internet-20140317
The United States is planning to give up its last remaining authority over the technical management of the Internet.
* WHY...???
The Commerce Department announced Friday that it will give the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), an international nonprofit group, control over the database of names and addresses that allows computers around the world to connect to each other.
* WHY...???
Administration officials say U.S. authority over the Internet address system was always intended to be temporary...
* WHY...?!?!
...and that ultimate power should rest with the "global Internet community."
* WHY...?!?!
But some...
* ME!
...fear that the Obama administration is opening the door to an Internet takeover by Russia, China, or other countries that are eager to censor speech and limit the flow of ideas.
* AND TAX INTERNET ACCESS...!!!
The Internet was invented in the United States, and the country has always had a central role in its management. But as the Internet has grown, other countries have demanded a greater voice.
* FUCK 'EM!
China, Russia, Iran, and dozens of other countries are already pushing for more control over the Internet through the International Telecommunications Union, a United Nations agency.
* AND HOW IS GIVING OTHER NATIONS - PARTICULARLY AUTHORITARIAN NATIONS HOSTILE TO THE U.S. - "MORE CONTROL OVER THE INTERNET" IN OUR INTEREST...??? (RHETORICAL QUESTION - IT'S NOT...!!!)
[H]aving the ultimate authority over the domain name system was the most important leverage the United States had in debates over the operation of the Internet. It was a trump card the U.S. could play if it wanted to veto an ICANN decision or fend off an international attack on Internet freedom.
* AND OBAMA IS GIVING THAT UP... WILLINGLY...???
Verizon, AT&T, Cisco, and other business groups all issued statements applauding the administration's move.
(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)
* THE OLIGARCHS... THE INTERNATIONALISTS... WHAT DO YOU EXPECT?
Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller argued that the transition will help ensure the Internet remains free and open.
* BULLSHIT ON THE FACE OF IT... BUT OF COURSE WE'RE TALKING DEMOCRAT JAY ROCKEFELLER...
Sen. John Thune, the top Republican on the Commerce Committee, said he will watch the process carefully, but that he trusts "the innovators and entrepreneurs more than the bureaucrats — whether they're in D.C. or Brussels."
* I HAVE NO FRIGGIN' IDEA WHAT THAT'S SUPPOSED TO MEAN... (*SCRATCHING MY HEAD*)... DOES HE APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE OF OBAMA GIVING CONTROL OF THE INTERNET AWAY...???
The transition will reassure the global community that the U.S. is not trying to manipulate the Internet for its own economic or strategic advantage, according to Cameron Kerry, a fellow at the Brookings Institution and the former acting Commerce secretary.
* WHO... THE... FUCK... CARES... WHAT "THE GLOBAL COMMUNITY" THINKS...?!?! WHY IS THIS A CONCERN TO US...?!?!
Steve DelBianco, the executive director of NetChoice, a pro-business tech group, said the U.S. was bound to eventually give up its role overseeing Internet addresses.
* WHY...?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/18/us-israel-usa-idUSBREA2H0SV20140318
Israel's defense minister has accused the United States of projecting weakness internationally and said Israel could not rely on its main ally to take the lead in confronting Iran over its nuclear program.
Moshe Yaalon, whose remarks were reported in the Haaretz daily on Tuesday ... only two months ago described Secretary of State John Kerry's quest for Israeli-Palestinian peace as messianic and obsessive.
* AND... FURTHER AFIELD...
And on a recent visit in Asia, Yaalon added [that] he found "disappointment about China getting stronger and the U.S. getting weaker."
* WELL, DUH!
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/03/17/crimea-ukraine-russia-ron-paul-editorials-debates/6544163/
* BY THE ALWAYS HONORABLE RON PAUL, FORMER CONGRESSMAN AND PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE
Residents of Crimea voted over the weekend on whether they would remain an autonomous region of Ukraine or join the Russian Federation. In so doing, they joined a number of countries and regions — including recently Scotland, Catalonia and Venice — that are seeking to secede from what they view as unresponsive or oppressive governments.
* DON'T FORGET QUEBEC!
* OH... AND REMEMBER THOSE PUERTO RICAN TERRORISTS CLINTON PARDONED...?
These latter three (Scotland, Catalonia and Venice) are proceeding without much notice, while the overwhelming Crimea vote to secede from Ukraine has incensed U.S. and European Union officials, and has led NATO closer to conflict with Russia than since the height of the Cold War.
What's the big deal? Why does the U.S. care which flag will be hoisted on a small piece of land thousands of miles away?
Critics point to the Russian "occupation" of Crimea as evidence that no fair vote could have taken place. Where were these people when an election held in an Iraq occupied by U.S. troops was called a "triumph of democracy?"
(*CHUCKLE*)
Perhaps the U.S. officials who supported the unconstitutional overthrow of Ukraine's government should refocus their energies on learning our own Constitution, which does not allow the U.S. government to overthrow governments overseas or send a billion dollars to bail out Ukraine and its international creditors.
* HEAR! HEAR!
http://black.house.gov/press-release/black-sends-letter-hhs-proposed-rule-change
Today, Congressman Diane Black (R-TN) sent a letter to Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius citing her concerns with a proposed rule change released last Friday afternoon that would allow insurance companies to keep a higher percentage of premiums paid for non-medical related expenses.
The text of Congressman Black’s letter:
Dear Secretary Sebelius:
I am writing to express my concern with the proposed rule change released on Friday, March 14th that would allow insurance companies to keep an additional two percent of premiums for purposes other than medical care.
Insurance premiums are rising for Americans across the country, and in a March 12th, 2014 hearing before the House Ways and Means Committee, you confirmed that premiums will continue to rise in 2015. This is why it is of particular concern to me that your department is now proposing to increase the amount of money that insurance companies will be allowed to retain for profit.
In the proposed rules...
* REMEMBER WHEN YOU LIVED IN A NATION OF LAWS... NOT "RULES," FOLKS?
...you have indicated that this adjustment in the “medical loss ratio”, or 80/20 rule, is due to the possibility of increased administrative costs in 2015. However, adjusting the percentage that insurance providers are required to spend on medical care by two percent would have the combined impact of reducing the amount that insurance providers will be required to pay for people’s medical care while increasing the amount that insurance companies are allowed to retain for profit and for executive pay.
* SOUNDS LIKE MORE OF OBAMA'S CRONY "CAPITALISM" TO ME.
Due to this proposed rule change, I would ask that your office provide me with answers to the following questions:
Have you calculated what effect this change would have on Americans’ out of pocket costs for medical care?
This 80/20 rule has previously been touted by this Administration as an important consumer protection within the Affordable Care Act – in your opinion, does rolling it back put consumers at greater risk of being taken advantage of by insurers?
If this rule were to take effect for 2015, what reasonable expectation can consumers have that it would be reversed in 2016 or later years?
At a time when public approval of the health care law is so low, do you believe that giving insurance companies a greater percentage of American consumers’ money for their profits will negatively impact enrollment?
* AND HERE THE PROBLEM... EVEN WITH THE REPUBLICANS... "GIVING INSURANCE COMPANIES A GREATER PERCENTAGE OF AMERICAN CONSUMERS' MONEY FOR THEIR PROFITS."
* THE FREE MARKET USED TO DO THIS. EVEN BEFORE OBAMACARE THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY WAS BASICALLY CONTROLLED BY GOVERNMENT REGULATORS. ALL OBAMACARE HAS DONE IS MAKE THINGS WORSE! AND NOW... WITH NEW "RULES" (THAT VIOLATE THE VERY LAW DEMS RAMMED THROUGH) THINGS ARE GETTING EVEN WORSE DAY BY DAY!
Do you believe it is fair to force Americans through tax penalties to give insurance companies an even greater percentage of their premiums for costs not related to medical care?
Sincerely,
Diane Black
Member of Congress
http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/18/report-premiums-rising-faster-than-eight-years-before-obamacare-combined/
Health insurance premiums have risen more after ObamaCare than the average premium increases over the eight years before it became law, according to the private health exchange eHealthInsurance.
* AIN'T IT GRAND!
The individual market for health insurance has seen premiums rise by 39% since February 2013, eHealthInsurance reports.
Families have been hit even harder with an average increase of 56% over the same period...
Between 2005 and 2013, average premiums for individual plans increased 37% and average family premiums were upped 31%.
* MEANING...
[T]hey have risen faster under ObamaCare than in the previous eight years.
(*CLAP...CLAP...CLAP*)
An important caveat is that eHealthInsurance prices don’t include subsidies...
* WHICH ACTUALLY MAKES IT WORSE! I'M PAYING MORE FOR ME... AND... I'M PAYING TO SUBSIDIZE OTHERS!
Premiums are being hiked across the board for several reasons, but the biggest contributor is the Obama administration’s highly touted “essential health benefits,” services that insurers on and off exchanges must provide. Some benefits, such as emergency and laboratory services, are uncontroversial. But others, like maternity, newborn and pediatric services, are causing headaches for huge swaths of the population that don’t need them. Anyone past childbearing age, single men, the infertile, even nuns — their premiums are rising as well, because their plans must, by law, provide more services.
* OH... AND... (READ ON!)
[P]remiums aren’t the only key to health care costs — deductibles and out-of-pocket costs like co-pays are also rising. When it comes to employer health plans alone, four out of five U.S. companies have increased deductibles or are considering doing so.
Prices may be people away from purchasing health insurance. The latest survey from consulting firm McKinsey found that half of those who haven’t purchased health insurance yet this year cited their inability to pay the premium.
* AND THIS NATION OF MORONS ELECTED OBAMA... AND THEN RE-ELECTED HIM.
* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)
http://news.yahoo.com/concerns-cancer-centers-under-health-law-201055387--politics.html;_ylt=AwrBEiGoqShT13AAnEfQtDMD
Some of America's best cancer hospitals are off-limits to many of the people now signing up for coverage under the nation's new health care program.
* CHANT IT WITH ME, FOLKS: O-BAM-A! O-BAM-A! O-BAM-A! O-BAM-A! O-BAM-A!
Doctors and administrators say they're concerned. So are some state insurance regulators.
* WHY DO WE EVEN HAVE STATE REGULATORS NOW THAT THE FEDS HAVE TAKEN OVER HEALTHCARE...??? (SERIOUS QUESTION!)
An Associated Press survey found examples coast to coast. Seattle Cancer Care Alliance is excluded by five out of eight insurers in Washington's insurance exchange.
* WASHINGTON'S OBAMACARE INSURANCE EXCHANGE...
MD Anderson Cancer Center says it's in less than half of the plans in the Houston area, [while] Memorial Sloan-Kettering is included by two of nine insurers in New York City and has out-of-network agreements with two more.
In all, only four of 19 nationally recognized comprehensive cancer centers that responded to AP's survey said patients have access through all the insurance companies in their states' exchanges.
* IN... THEIR... STATES'... OBAMACARE... EXCHANGES....
* FUNNY HOW THE AP DOESN'T SEEM TO WANT TO GIVE CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE, HUH?
Not too long ago insurance companies would have been vying to offer access to renowned cancer centers, said Dan Mendelson, CEO of the market research firm Avalere Health. Now the focus is on costs.
* CHANT IT WITH ME, FOLKS: O-BAM-A! O-BAM-A! O-BAM-A! O-BAM-A! O-BAM-A!
* OH... AND BTW... COSTS ARE UP - NOT DOWN. I'M PAYING MORE AND GETTING LESS. MOST MIDDLE CLASS PEOPLE ARE!
"This is a marked deterioration of access to the premier cancer centers for people who are signing up for these plans," Mendelson said.
* O-BAM-A! O-BAM-A! O-BAM-A! O-BAM-A! O-BAM-A!
Those patients may not be able get the most advanced treatment, including clinical trials of new medications.
* HEY... FUCK 'EM IF THEY CAN'T TAKE A JOKE... RIGHT? (THAT OBAMA... HE'S A FUNNY GUY!)
And there's another problem: it's not easy for consumers shopping online in the new insurance markets to tell if top-level institutions are included in a plan.
* "NOT EASY." UH-HUH. THAT'S ONE WAY OF PUTTING IT.
* COM'ON, FOLKS... CAN YOU EVEN FIND AN ACTUAL PRICE BEFORE ACTUALLY SIGNING UP YET? (FORGET ABOUT WHAT'S INCLUDED AND WHAT'S NOT!)
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)
"The challenges of this are going to become evident ... as cancer cases start to arrive," said Norman Hubbard, executive vice president of Seattle Cancer Care Alliance.
* THINK HARRY REID IS GONNA CALL HUBBARD A LIAR?
Before President Barack Obama's health care law, a cancer diagnosis could make you uninsurable.
* AND THAT COULD HAVE BEEN DEALT WITH ABSENT OBAMACARE... ABSENT THROWING OUT THE BABY WITH THE BATH WATER!
Lifetime dollar limits on policies, once a financial trap-door for cancer patients, are also banned.
* AS SUCH! (BUT IF THE TREATMENT IS DENIED YOU...) (*SHRUG*) IN ANY CASE, THIS TOO COULD HAVE BEEN DEALT WITH AS A SINGLE UNIQUE CONCERN.
The new obstacles are more subtle. To keep premiums low, insurers have designed narrow networks of hospitals and doctors. The government-subsidized private plans on the exchanges typically offer less choice than Medicare or employer plans.
* O-BAM-A! O-BAM-A! O-BAM-A! O-BAM-A! O-BAM-A!
By not including a top cancer center an insurer can cut costs.
* WOW... WHO WOULD HAVE THUNK IT?!
It may also shield itself from risk, delivering an implicit message to cancer survivors or people with a strong family history of the disease that they should look elsewhere.
(*PURSED LIPS*)
For now, the issue seems to be limited to the new insurance exchanges. But it could become a concern for Americans with job-based coverage, too, if employers turn to narrow networks.
* YA THINK...?!?!
(*SNORT*)
Melanie Lapidus, vice president for managed care at Barnes-Jewish Hospital in St. Louis, home to Siteman Cancer Center, said she doesn't think patients realize the exchanges offer a more restrictive kind of private insurance. Lapidus cited Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, which includes Siteman in many of its plans outside the Missouri exchange, but none within the exchange. "We have had many people say to us, 'I picked Anthem because you guys are always in their products, and I assumed you would be in their exchange products'," Lapidus said. "It's still hard to tell who is in network and who is not."
* "IT'S... STILL... HARD..." NICE.
The Obama administration says it has notified insurers that their networks will get closer scrutiny for next year in the 36 states served by the federal exchange. Cancer care will be a priority, it says.
* WHAT'S THAT MEAN...?!?! DOES IT MEAN OBAMA WILL SIMPLY ORDER EXCHANGES TO PAY FOR WHATEVER A CANCER SUFFERER ASKS FOR? FOLKS... THINK ABOUT HOW INSANE ALL THIS IS! REMEMBER WHEN PELOSI FAMOUSLY SAID, "WE'LL KNOW WHAT'S IN THE BILL ONCE IT'S PASSED,"? WELL... WE KNOW... AND IT AIN'T GOOD!
* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)
http://www.humanevents.com/2014/03/18/is-putin-the-irrational-one/
* BY PATRICK J. BUCHANAN
Vladimir Putin seems to have lost touch with reality, Angela Merkel reportedly told Barack Obama after speaking with the Russian president. He is “in another world.”
“I agree with what Angela Merkel said … that he is in another world,” said Madeleine Albright, “It doesn’t make any sense.”
John Kerry made his contribution to the bonkers theory by implying that Putin was channeling Napoleon: “You don’t just, in the 21st century, behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on a completely trumped-up pretext.”
Now that Putin has taken Crimea without firing a shot, and 95% of a Crimean electorate voted Sunday to reunite with Russia, do his decisions still appear irrational?
Was it not predictable that Russia, a great power that had just seen its neighbor yanked out of Russia’s orbit by a U.S.-backed coup in Kiev, would move to protect a strategic position on the Black Sea she has held for two centuries?
Zbigniew Brzezinski suggests that Putin is out to recreate the czarist empire. Others say Putin wants to recreate the Soviet Union and Soviet Empire. But why would Russia, today being bled in secessionist wars by Muslim terrorists in the North Caucasus provinces of Chechnya, Dagestan and Ingushetia, want to invade and reannex giant Kazakhstan, or any other Muslim republic of the old USSR, which would ensure jihadist intervention and endless war? If we Americans want out of Afghanistan, why would Putin want to go back into Uzbekistan? Why would he want to annex Western Ukraine where hatred of Russia dates back to the forced famine of the Stalin era?
To invade and occupy all of Ukraine would mean endless costs in blood and money for Moscow, the enmity of Europe, and the hostility of the United States. For what end would Russia, its population shrinking by half a million every year, want to put Russian soldiers back in Warsaw?
Vladimir Putin is a blood-and-soil, altar-and-throne ethnonationalist who sees himself as Protector of Russia and looks on Russians abroad the way Israelis look upon Jews abroad, as people whose security is his legitimate concern.
Consider the world Putin saw, from his vantage point, when he took power after the Boris Yeltsin decade. He saw a Mother Russia that had been looted by oligarchs abetted by Western crony capitalists, including Americans. He saw millions of ethnic Russians left behind, stranded, from the Baltic states to Kazakhstan. He saw a United States that had deceived Russia with its pledge not to move NATO into Eastern Europe if the Red Army would move out, and then exploited Russia’s withdrawal to bring NATO onto her front porch.
Had the neo-cons gotten their way, not only the Warsaw Pact nations of Central and Eastern Europe, but five of 15 republics of the USSR, including Ukraine and Georgia, would have been brought into a NATO alliance created to contain and, if need be, fight Russia[!]
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)
What benefits have we derived from having Estonia and Latvia as NATO allies that justify losing Russia as the friend and partner Ronald Reagan had made by the end of the Cold War?
* WELL...???
We lost Russia, but got Rumania as an ally? Who is irrational here?
* WELL...???
Cannot we Americans, who, with our Monroe Doctrine, declared the entire Western Hemisphere off limits to the European empires — “Stay on your side of the Atlantic!” — understand how a Russian nationalist like Putin might react to U.S. F-16s and ABMs in the eastern Baltic?
* I CAN! I DO! AND I WANT RUSSIA AS AN ALLY AGAINST CHINA...!!!
In 1999, we bombed Serbia for 78 days, ignoring the protests of a Russia that had gone to war for Serbia in 1914.
[In 2011] We exploited a Security Council resolution authorizing us to go to the aid of endangered Libyans in Benghazi to launch a war and bring down the Libyan regime.
We have given military aid to Syrian rebels and called for the ouster of a Syrian regime that has been Russia’s ally for decades.
* FOLKS... CONSIDER... (KEEP READING!)
At the end of the Cold War, writes ex-ambassador to Moscow Jack Matlock, 80% of Russia’s people had a favorable opinion of the USA. A decade later, 80 percent of Russians were anti-American.
* HELL! I'M "ANTI-AMERICAN" TODAY! (AT LEAST ANTI-AMERICAN GOVERNMENT!)
That was before Putin, whose approval is now at 72% because he is perceived as having stood up to the Americans and answered our Kiev coup with his Crimean counter coup.
America and Russia are on a collision course today over a matter (whose flag will fly over what parts of Ukraine) no Cold War president, from Truman to Reagan, would have considered any of our business. If the people of Eastern Ukraine wish to formalize their historic, cultural and ethnic ties to Russia, and the people of Western Ukraine wish to sever all ties to Moscow and join the European Union, why not settle this politically, diplomatically and democratically - at a ballot box?
Post a Comment